alt Hacker NewsThis link has much more information:
> Apple has used version 0.9.1 of process design kit (PDK) designed for Intel 18AP node. With performance, density, power, and every other metric going according to plan, Intel could become Apple's source of advanced node production in 2027... The 18A-P node enhances Intel's 18A by incorporating RibbonFET and PowerVia technologies, which offer better performance and energy efficiency. Compared to the regular 18A node, these improvements include newly designed low-threshold voltage components, optimized elements to reduce leakage, and refined ribbon width specifications, all aimed at boosting performance-per-watt metrics.
https://www.techpowerup.com/343423/intel-could-manufacture-a...
Remember that Apple previously dual sourced SOCs from both TSMC and Samsung before dropping Samsung when they fell behind and chips built on their process node were materially worse.
This is trial production, not a done deal. Intel has to deliver on their promises.
The good news for Intel is that Apple has a long history of paying up front for dedicated manufacturing lines once a manufacturing partner proves that they can hit Apple's QC metrics and price point.
Replies
Yeah, I remember hearing NVidia did the same thing via Moore’s Law is Dead podcast. At this point it seems incredibly unlikely Intel will unseat TSMC anytime soon. TSMC has proven time and time again it is the only fab capable of producing leading edge nodes at the capacity and quality required by the likes of Apple, NVidia, and AMD. It also has substantially deeper pockets than Intel to continue to invest in staying number one.
I think if Intel is to stand a chance it’ll be via gaining momentum and market via “good enough” nodes and not cutting edge, essentially taking a page out of TSMCs playbook from the late 2000s and early 2010s. It needs more capital than it can raise, and time, both of which are hard to come by.
> chips built on their process node were materially worse
Would they be considered the same chip in the same design? Or same chip with slightly different design? Or different design altogether?
Genuinely curious because sometimes to support both Windows and Linux code would need to follow OS distinct paths in many locations even if the compiler is supposed to support cross arch, resulting in binaries that are supposed to be the same but behaves differently due to necessity. Is this the case here? Does TSMC and Samsung support different format of chip design equivalent of code?